As New Zealand Courts Tech Talent, Isolation Becomes a Draw - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/14/technology/new-zealand-tech-industry.html <comment><USER6> > For all sorts of reasons, New Zealand suddenly makes sense. The cost of > living is less than in San Francisco. Commuting is less wearying. And > American politics, "Brexit" and the Islamic State are on the other side of > the world.

For the most part, this is all true in, say, Tulsa. Especially if you stay off Facebook.

You especially don't have to go to New Zealand to find a cheaper, commuter- friendly place to work.

Nothing against New Zealand. I'm sure it's a great place to live. The writing in the article is just sloppy.

<comment><USER7> When I think of NZ, I imagine South Pacific beaches, lush forests of emu and kiwi and other exotic animals, and the landscape of the Lord of the Rings film trilogy.

What natural beauty does Tulsa have?

<comment><USER8> If you end up in Auckland, Wellington or Christchurch you could be just in another big city anywhere in the world, you may be within an hour or twos drive of some of the above descriptors but you wont be looking out of your home or office window at them unless you can drop a million dollars on a house. Get real guys.

<comment><USER9> Here's a photo of Wellington I took while commuting to work on my mountain bike. Trail head is 2mins from my office...

[https://goo.gl/photos/9AQWmraCss6U9uVp7](https://goo.gl/photos/9AQWmraCss6U9uVp7)

If you're in into biking, or windsurfing Wellington is definitely a stunning place to live.

[edit] Also since everybody is talking about emus, this trail is actually called barking emu. But it is misnamed - since it's actually an Ostrich in the paddock up there.

<comment><USER10> Wouldn't the commute home be a bit tough on a bike?

<comment><USER11> Yes. What GP is omitting is that Wellington winters are akin to England but with a great deal more wind. In the summer, that commute is likely wonderful, but for four months of the year, it isn't.

<comment><USER10> I was thinking of a big hill climb, but obviously the wind would be a big issue too, even in summer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> That's interesting !

I'm intending to make a move with my family in near future, and we actually went to visit the northern island for 15 days last month. The country is really beautiful, and there are not a lot of people around, so you can't help but feel blessed by the surrounding nature. The people are great, probably the nicest I've ever seen (as a whole).

I've noted some cons though (not blocking for us thankfully):

\- housing prices are extremely high. I don't understand that, there is plenty of space everywhere (maybe except Wellington) and somehow they manage to not use this advantage...

\- housing quality is really poor (comparing to Europe)

\- prices are generally quite high

\- internet connectivity feels like we're 10 years back

\- outside of Wellington and Auckland, I didn't feel like there were any interesting opportunities in IT (that's a subjective and based on a very limited evidence from discussions with local / personal observations)

\- food quality is good, but eating habits don't seem to follow. Obesity seems to be a huge problem there (we have kids so will need to pay double attention to that). We were pretty much shocked because we naively thought that in such a beautiful and clean country everybody is running / biking all the time.

Would be very happy to hear stories that made the move ! Also very interested to hear about opportunities / work environment there in IT (even better if it's ML related).

<comment><USER13> I too am considering a move to NZ for family reasons, and visited Auckland last month. It truly is a spectacular city framed by an amazing harbor, but it's not without some faults. My thoughts on the cons you raise based on conversations I had with a few locals:

> _housing prices are extremely high. I don 't understand that, there is > plenty of space everywhere (maybe except Wellington) and somehow they manage > to not use this advantage.._

Yes, it really is crazy particularly when you look at prices relative to salaries. As I understand it, the primary driver is everyone wants to live in Auckland as that's where most of the higher paying jobs are located which is driving up prices. Also, given the city is on an isthmus, the main space is really North and South of the city which increases commute times on already clogged highways.

> _housing quality is really poor (comparing to Europe)_

This is slowly changing as proper insulation becomes a requirement, but compared to Europe and US houses the quality is incredibly poor.

> _prices are generally quite high_

For consumer goods, absolutely. Also dining out seemed expensive, but supermarket costs seemed pretty reasonable given the quality of the food.

> _internet connectivity feels like we 're 10 years back_

I was pleasantly surprised by this. I was regularly getting 50-100 down where I stayed, and it appears the government has made ultra-fast broadband a national priority so it should hopefully continue to improve over the next decade. One thing people warned me though is don't expect anything to happen quickly in NZ.

> _outside of Wellington and Auckland, I didn 't feel like there were any > interesting opportunities in IT_

Have you looked at Christchurch? Apparently the government is incentivizing companies to build there with the goal of making it the high tech capital of the South Island. I believe Vodafone has some pretty impressive plans for the city.

> _food quality is good, but eating habits don 't seem to follow. Obesity > seems to be a huge problem there (we have kids so will need to pay double > attention to that). We were pretty much shocked because we naively thought > that in such a beautiful and clean country everybody is running / biking all > the time._

I believe this is largely driven by income inequality, much like here in the US. While the food really is phenomenal quality, families at the lower end of the socio-economic ladder are often priced out of the market and default to unhealthy options as a matter of necessity. Also, it was explained to me that a lot of Maori and Polynesian recipes are very fatty which is why they tend to be over-represented in obesity statistics.

Overall my impression after visiting is that it's a great country, but it's not perfect. Prices are higher (due to it's isolation) and salaries are lower, but people tend to worry less about materialistic things and "getting ahead". There seems to be more of a relaxed mood to everything and as my wife contemplate where we want to raise our kids that is hugely appealing.

<comment><USER14> One concern I always have in the back of my mind about NZ is seismic activity. I thought of it since you mentioned Christchurch.

It's unlikely to be seen as a major downside by those living in California and along the Pacific Rim, and it's clear NZ is no worse than Japan in terms of seismic risk, yet an advanced economy with plenty of people thrives there, to put it mildly.

But coming from the US midwest and then the southeast, where these issues are seldom a concern, it makes me nervous.

What are your thoughts on that?

<comment><USER12> Just don't go to Rotorua :)

The whole place feels like it's unstable and ready to blow ! I loved the city, but I'm not sure I could live there, with those constant remainders of the seismic activity (this plus the smell...)

<comment><USER15> I wouldn't worry about earthquakes in Rotorua - if you get any, they're a helpful warning of impending eruption ;)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taupo_Volcanic_Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taupo_Volcanic_Zone)

Fun fact - Auckland is built on a large monogenetic volcanic field.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_volcanic_field](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_volcanic_field)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How bizarre. I specifically relocated from NZ to the U.S. because of the lack of job opportunities in the Tech industry. I'd been looking for a job for over 9 months in New Zealand. I flew into the U.S. to visit my dad and applied for some jobs and had an offer within two weeks. Not only is the cost of living cheaper here (where I'm located at in the U.S.), but my salary is much better off at about 30,000 higher than what I ever made in NZ.

If politics is what's motivating your relocation to a country like New Zealand, let me assure you, local politics are just as silly if not more so over there. Not only that but people are just as obsessed with American politics, and as an American, you will be singled out for these political discussions often. You may even find yourself discriminated against for your origins and nationality as I often did.

<comment><USER17> What was your salary in NZ?

<comment><USER16> My last salary was about 70,000 NZD, which is less than $49,000 USD. I now make $87,000 USD (about 124,000 NZD), and I've got a written agreement for a raise to $95,000 in about another six months (135,000 NZD). The most I ever made in NZ was one year where I worked two different contractor jobs at about 60 hours per week and I brought in maybe 80k NZD ($56,000 USD). I now make $31,000 USD more than that at just 40 hours of work per week.

<comment><USER17> Are you a junior dev? Those contracting rates are _awful_.

I'd class 70k as great for a junior, mediocre for intermediate and a joke for a senior. Wonder if they low-balled you for being a foreigner.

FWIW as a NZer you hit the nail on the head about the anti-americanism, and simultaneous obsession with american politics.

<comment><USER18> It depends on where you live in the US. That salary would be low in the Bay but high in other places.

<comment><USER17> 70 NZD = ~49 USD that's low in the bay but high in other places?!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I love how these comments always boil down to salary and cost of living arguments. People, (mostly Americans), you're doing it wrong. What kind of fool moves to a remote island in the middle of nowhere and then expects to somehow still earn as much as in the United States? This is not the right reason to expatriate. Go because you love NZ (or X country) not because you want to leave America. Go because you like the lifestyle and traditions the locals live, not because you want to transport your high earning consumer abundance life into a different country. You will be doomed for failure if you do.

<comment><USER20> I did that and pretty much earn what I used to earn in London. Perhaps a little more. There are excellent options for talented techies, need a little bit of trust in yourself and you're all set.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Funny how it goes from appealing to "American Lord of the Rings nerds and Peter Thiel" really quickly.

Had our honeymoon in New Zealand and really loved it. Auckland and Wellington are both beautiful, but, frankly, I'd rather be somewhere more relaxed like Nelson. I wish we had spent more time enjoying the south island and less time up north. Not so practical if you're trying to find work, though, I suppose. (I didn't make it to Christchurch).

The housing prices really did surprise, though. Granted, most places I looked at housing costs were more "wandering around town, find real estate office, look at what's in the window" so it ended up being expensive places like Auckland, Queenstown, Wanaka, etc, but it was still quite surprising, and left me wondering how anyone could afford it without bringing in money from the outside.

Then again, the grass is always greener -- I moved from Seattle to the SF area 15 years ago for the better weather and better traffic (don't laugh!) yet every time I travel, I find myself drawn to living in places like Reykjavik, Stockholm, Copenhagen, Nelson, etc. I'm sure the realities of the climates of these various places would come to me after the novelty wore off. And perhaps I just look fondly upon them because they remind me of "home" \-- even though I was so happy to leave it.

<comment><USER22> I left DC for Maine. So far, the novelty hasn't worn off. I like to think of cold, snowy winters as the natural repellent that prevents us from getting too crowded.

I am screwed if my job goes away (screwed in that I'd have to move). For one, there aren't a lot of fortune 500 companies up here, and I've noticed a desire for smaller companies to prefer people with small/startup experience. I don't blame them, some of the challenges are unique. Also, given where I'm at in my career on the low end of the executive ranks, there just aren't a lot of laterals available up here on a good day.

All of those downsides and it's still the best move I ever made.

<comment><USER23> For a different viewpoint, I moved away from Maine after college, to Massachusetts, and wouldn't move back. The politics of the area are backwards and profoundly broken in the "boy, I hope you're a straight white male or things are gonna get _rough_ " sort of way you don't expect from the general oasis of New England sanity, the drug issues in the places I grew up are rampant, and the public schools are being actively choked to death (because who needs that, yeah?).

It's a beautiful place. I'm glad I left and I'm glad the few people in my family still there are either retired or working on escaping.

<comment><USER22> I'm in the Portland area, which I think helps. Occasionally we miss city life, so we head down to Boston, which is a pretty reasonable 90 minute drive.

I don't think I could live too far north of Freeport or Brunswick, and I'm not very interested in living too far west of 95. Parts of this state are certainly backwards. Actually, the majority is if you go by land area, but I think we have a nice thing going in York and Cumberland counties.

<comment><USER23> Portland's okay. I enjoy visiting for a few days here and there. But it's attached to a state that elected Paul LePage, which is...a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A lot of Americans seem to have an idyllic notion of moving to NZ - often for political or LOTR movie reasons. If you're even toying with the idea, do yourself a favour and check out the following:

\- Salaries

\- Housing price

\- Housing _quality_ \- expect to pay top dollar for luxuries like insulation, double-glazed windows, and kitchens built within the last few decades.

\- The cost of a car, and the size and quality of the roads

\- The cost of electronic appliances, food, etc

Completely unrelated, what's the going salary for an intermediate programmer/analyst in one of those really flat US states full of cornfields?

<comment><USER24> The politics of New Zealand, especially when it comes to land rights + individual freedoms, can be enlightening.

<comment><USER17> How so?

<comment><USER25> Waitangi. The successful negotiation of land with Māori. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi)

<comment><USER26> Kiwi here, what happened is moreso that the British accidentally gave the Maori more rights than they anticipated in the translation, and as the country became more progressive in the 20th century, the govt decided to respect those rights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm an expat kiwi would would have loved to move back from the US over the past few years, but unfortunately it suffers from a similar problem to the San Fran/SV scene here. Most tech employers are in Auckland, and the housing prices are insane. Remote work isn't embraced even a tenth of what it could or should be. I love it there, but for the kind of environment I'd need (affordable family home + strong job propsects) we've just been priced out in our time away.

<comment><USER28> Do what I did - move back home somewhere cheap, keep your US job. Living in Dunedin on my silicon valley salary, as I have for the past 15 years or so (I lived in the Bay Area for 20 years), is a good place to be, trading my over- inflated Bay Area house for a good mortgage free one here helps too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> New Zealand isn't cheaper. If you compare it to SF and NY, yes it will look cheaper. But otherwise its costlier for some people(immigrants) who wish to come in.

Financially, its not important what you earn, its important how much can you keep/save.

From a financial perspective - NZ salaries are relatively lower compared to its costs of living. A well paid tech guy from India would save a lot more in SF than they can ever do in NZ. For talented senior developers in India, they lose financially by going to NZ. And lack of (job) options is quite visible.

From a non-financial perspective - NZ is one of the best countries to live in. But just that is not going to bring you the top-tech-talent.

</comment><comment><USER30> I love NZ... but I live in Melbourne, Australia and there are tons of kiwis here (including many close friends and colleagues). They come here because salaries are better, adjusted cost of living is less and there are just more opportunities for professionals.

Australia isn't perfect but I'm not really sure that NZ is a more attractive destination for tech workers.

<comment><USER15> You forgot that a) it's warmer and b) Melbourne has a sweet nightlife - <USER2> surprising when it has the same population as our entire country.

Yeah, come to New Zealand because you like mountains and temperate rainforests. Not to advance your IT career. I think in 20 years time that may change though - the tyranny of distance applies less to software than other products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> As a Kiwi, here are my thoughts:

Isolation: yes, you are away from the troubles of the world, but it also means you'll be away from your families, you don't get Amazon Prime, and surprisingly you won't have as many Netflix movies to choose from. Don't expect to miss gridlock traffic, or be living in a Hobbit house lol

Costs: Don't expect NZ to be super cheap. Housing prices are ridiculous and often won't have much in terms of insulation and heating. Food prices will be fairly normal (although you will have a diverse selection, and it's generally good quality), and you're simply not going to get paid as much as you would in major centres elsewhere in the world. Phone and internet plans are going to be expensive. Also, take into account those flights home you'll be making - <USER3> won't come cheap.

Entertainment: There will be fun things to do for sure, but don't expect as much as what you might get in other major cities. NZ is however great for sports, and you'll fit right in if you have a sporting hobby or two.

People: NZ has a diverse population, and has a unique culture. Don't expect it to be like wherever else you're from. As a kiwi, I love the NZ culture - <USER4> love that people will stop and help you out, that police are friendly and non- threatening, and that we have the ability to laugh at ourselves, and not take things so seriously. Just like anywhere however, you do run into dickheads every now and then.

All in all, NZ is a "pretty choice" (pretty good) place to live. I imagine it'd be quite a bit of a culture shock for some people though, and it's not all cherries and rainbows. Some people might find it a little boring, others might like the chilled atmosphere and laid-backness.

</comment><comment><USER32> New Zealand does sound pretty incredible. A massive national park, the size of California, with only 5 million people, and very liveable and appealing cities.

Here's the thing. Would New Zealand stay that way if it pursued a policy of large scale immigration, they way the US has? The US takes well over a million new immigrants into the country every year. 10 years of our immigration would triple the size of New Zealand.

I'm sure they could find takers. Plenty of people would love to move to New Zealand.

I do wonder why the US, which takes over a million immigrants a year, takes so much heat for enforcing immigration policy, while New Zealand receives so much praise for being an ideal society.

It sounds like New Zealand may use its selectivity to allow in immigrants, but only those likely to contribute significantly to the bottom line. In a way, their exclusivity may actually help them cherry pick the very best. As strategy, I get it. But again, the NYTimes has been immensely critical of deportations in the US. Why do they give NZ a pass on this? And if they're going to praise New Zealand, doesn't that mean they're praising a very limited immigration policy?

I mean, how about this last quote: "It's boom time for the next 10 years," Mr. Drury said. The more immigrants, the better. "We'll take a lot. We'll take hundreds."

Woah, not _hundreds_?

<comment><USER17> _A massive national park, the size of California, with only 5 million people_

I'm sorry but that's an incredibly ignorant thing to say. NZ is not a massive national park. Take a brief glance at it on google maps. Most of it is light green - farmland.

We have about the same forest area % as Idaho. Or is that a massive national park as well?

<comment><USER32> I learn a lot from debating on HN. I will avoid saying this in the future.

I will agree that the statement is ignorant if taken very literally and, in my opinion, uncharitably. I don't actually think NZ is literally a giant national park, though it is a naturally beautiful and relatively undeveloped place.

Still in highly contentious arguments it's best to avoid giving people the opportunity to call you ignorant, so in future iterations I'll certainly be more careful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Great for the Kiwis. I wish them well.

But regrettably, I lack the patience to read past an intro sort of equating the ramifications of Brexit with those of Islamic State.

Could journalism please step outside for a minute and perform a reality check?

<comment><USER34> Brexit is arguably much more destructive to Britain than Isis to the US. In the absence of major casualties economic impact is relevant. It wiped 10% of the pound's value out and there will be more impact before we're done. The day Isis knocks 10% off the dollar...

<comment><USER35> Not even arguably.

Hell, Brexit is more destructive to _Americans_ than ISIS is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> A while back I was going through the immigration process for NZ with an immigration lawyer and had all the points necessary and was moving on to the interview phase.

My wife and I ultimately decided to stop as she became pregnant and didn't want to be as far away from family. That and the flight/quarantine times that would be imposed for our dogs. Another big issue was taxes.

To my knowledge NZ and USA are two countries that will try to tax you wherever you live until you die unless you renounce citizenship. So dealing with being double taxed on income from NZ and USA was a big deal as well.

Whenever I read these articles, it does sound so appealing. My sister has lived there for many years and the quality of life just seems so much better.

<comment><USER37> > To my knowledge NZ and USA are two countries that will try to tax you > wherever you live until you die unless you renounce citizenship.

US yes, NZ no. The US is practically the only country in the world to do that actually. And they _WILL_ hit you with an extra "exit" tax if you try and renounce your citizenship too.

<comment><USER38> NZ yes.

My ex's family went and worked in Australia for a year or two. They boarded the plane, came back to New Zealand, and got a letter from the IRD demanding payment of taxes for the time they worked in Australia. Her father shot back that "They did not use any services from" NZ at all. The IRD responded that the services were available, and if they didn't pay their tax bill they were ready to initiate prosecution.

<comment><USER37> _In general_ , that is not the law, nor is that common IRD practice, as the many, many, many kiwis who spend time in Australia could tell you.

At a guess, your ex's family managed to stay resident in NZ (or the IRD may have incorrectly believed them to be so), or they spent too much time in NZ, or didn't spend enough time in the US, or the IRD just screwed up the paperwork, etc.

But the law is quite clear, and is explained in detail on the IRD's website: [http://www.ird.govt.nz/international/residency/dta/double- ta...](http://www.ird.govt.nz/international/residency/dta/double-tax- agreements-index.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I know several kiwis and my wife has traveled there extensively. The biggest issues seem to stem from "island culture" which means:

\- Most things are expensive and lower quality than you are used to. Furniture, housing, food, etc. Simply because of isolation and logistics. \- Poor job market, terribly poor for most people. \- Which leads to rules making it much harder to move to NZ long term. Unless you meet some high bars (several million dollars in the bank or married to a kiwi, etc.) it is hard to get permanent residence there.

On the other hand, it is one of the most beautiful and rugged countries in the world. An unlike Australia, every plant and animal is not actively trying to kill you.

<comment><USER38> I lived in Dunedin.

Items there were charged at rates suitable for wealthy tourists. Pay rates were legal minimums, although the added extras you had to provide for your work were well outside any legal rights employers have. For my last job, I used my PC and other personal equipment just to do my job, while my employer sat back and raked in the cash. (Almost literally, they would pay $6k in wages and $0 for equipment while billing $60+k for a job. One guy I know who took a similar role in the business has had a verbal warning for not doing his job properly, so he's providing his own equipment.)

A friend of mine lives in Auckland. A year or so back, he explained that his rent had more than doubled in a single day. (He was on a fixed term lease that expired, he went to renew it, and the rent went up but his income didn't.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I don't think New Zealand's selling point will ever be isolation. To have isolation you need to have a place with very lax laws where people don't want to bother you. New Zealand is very beautiful and interesting but there are still many laws and many people who want to bother you.

Maybe this is "isolation" in a previously unheard of, to me, sense where you just don't want to be a citizen of a major nation or something? I don't know. For what I think of as "isolation" NZ is too draconian.

Higher taxes and stricter laws really make it a no go for many people.

When 50k USD lands you in the highest tax bracket (30%), when everything tech related is more expensive, and you're a software engineer it's a hard sell.

NZ's biggest selling points are low crime, low unemployment, interesting area, and attractive social programs. It's definetly not an isolationist paradise unless you define isolationist as being "not in America, Middle East, or Europe" which this article seems happy to do.

<comment><USER41> > _It 's definetly not an isolationist paradise_

"Isolation" and "Isolationist" are significantly different concepts. One is a physical property, the other is a social construct.

> _To have isolation you need to have a place with very lax laws where people > don 't want to bother you._

This isn't isolationism either. Switzerland is isolationist, but it has plenty of strict laws (including conscription), for example. What you're describing is a libertarian fantasy country.

<comment><USER40> > "Isolation" and "Isolationist" are significantly different concepts. One is > a physical property, the other is a social construct.

Someone who want's to isolate themselves, in search of "isolation", can be called an "isolationist".

> This isn't isolationism either. Switzerland is isolationist, but it has > plenty of strict laws (including conscription), for example. What you're > describing is a libertarian fantasy country.

If you want to be "isolated" you need a place where others will stay away from you. People who want to make you do things will undoutably cause people to come and enforce those desires. Any place that want's to force people to do things is not friendly to those who would like to "isolate" themselves... those whom could be called "isolationists" or "practicioners of isolation".

The word "isolationist" in a national context means the nation is the one practicing isolation. From my context it is clear that the personal is attempting to practice isolation. I don't think your interpretation of what I was saying is correct.

<comment><USER41> One of the really annoying things about libertarianism is the way it takes words that other people already use, redefine it to mean something else, and then tells those people they're wrong for using the original word.

An 'isolationist' is someone who wants their country to withdraw from the world politically. It's not someone who wants to live 'off the grid'. It's not someone who is frightened by a 30% marginal tax bracket. It's not another term for 'libertarian'. Someone who wants to live off by themselves with little interaction with others is called a hermit, not an isolationist.

<comment><USER40> Googling "define isolationist" gives the following:

        a person favoring a policy of remaining apart from the affairs or interests of other groups, especially the political affairs of other countries.

Googling "define isolation":

        the process or fact of isolating or being isolated.

Where did I redefine those?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Ireland is similar, minus the isolation. In Shannon you can leave a car 100 meters from terminal, and board direct US flight in 30 minutes.

<comment><USER43> Ireland is under the radar. One more hidden gem is Chile, especially considering land/property prices and freelance-friendly visas.

<comment><USER44> Salaries in Chile aren't that great though (except for some top-level talent I guess). I've been told about USD 3000/month tops. But it's definitely the best country in South America for IT talent.

I live in Uruguay, and Americans think it's great, but it's not (barring an exceptional job offer/salary as usual). Lots of jobs but very low paying (USD 1000/month take home salary for entry level dev, USD 2000 for experienced dev. Gross salary can be almost twice because taxes are very harsh) and extremely expensive on a standard salary. We do have a tremendous amount of immigrants from the poorer Latin American countries, especially Venezuela and Dominican Republic.

<comment><USER45> In my post-election funk last fall I was researching places to get the hell out to, and discovered Uruguay, as a very attractive possibility for a decent place to live -- provided one had good Spanish. But you say wages are low? How much of a tech industry is there?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> What are the internet throughput and latencies for typical setups in residential locations in New Zealand? What about more expensive commercial setups?

<comment><USER47> 75% of the population will have access to fibre at gigabit speeds by 2019 [1]. Coverage will increase to 84% by 2024. Not sure about latencies off the top of my head, but there are several new international cables under construction [2] which will help which accessing sites hosted overseas.

[1] [https://www.crownfibre.govt.nz/](https://www.crownfibre.govt.nz/) [2] [http://www.hawaikicable.co.nz/](http://www.hawaikicable.co.nz/)

<comment><USER48> That nice for 2019. How about atm though? :)

<comment><USER47> The rollout started a number of years ago. They're already over 70% of the way towards the 75% target.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Folks - a kiwi here. There are loads of tech companies in NZ and in the past developers are attracted by the lifestyle. Orion in the health space, Xero SaaS accounting system, Navman, hell even the first GSM controlled Coke vending machine was from NZ. GPS chips for mobiles invented by Radon, and we of course have Tait Electronics in Christchurch who do military comms gear - everybody who wants the best for the most extreme environments buys their gear.

Auckland house prices pushed up a load by Chinese families needing somewhere safe to put their cash outside of China. And the only thing they could put into was housing.

As to quality of housing its different to Europe because of the cliate duh! Solid stone and brick houses are not suited to temperate climates. And yes they are smaller than American houses because NZers dont live inside all year round. If its cold or wet, then just tough up, wear more clothes, and get on with your ife instead of hiding in your concrete bunker with the central heating on (you wont find those either).

First and foremost consider the lifestyle. If that is for you then you can be sure if you are capable then you will find work. NZ has the world's highest proportion of self-employed and entrepreneurs and still an attitude of 'can- do' prevails.

</comment><comment><USER50> Has anyone here made the move? It would be interesting to hear some real life stories, and post honeymoon-phase pros/cons evaluation of NZ.

<comment><USER51> I have, from EU. I've been living in Auckland for 2 years. Scala dev. I left recently though. I think I may have good perspective, shoot me questions if you want.

<comment><USER52> What made you leave? Did you miss european culture ( or sports on TV or anything like that)? How did you deal with the time difference between Europe and NZ? When I was in NZ on vacation I missed being able to watch the stuff that I am used to on TV in the evening, due to the twelve hour time difference to Europe. I dont think I could ever switch from soccer to cricket.

<comment><USER51> > What made you leave? Missing friends and family, very hard to reach with > 12hours difference even by phone. Requires lots of coordination.

Very isolated - very little "new" jobs, conferences(Scala) etc... all in respect to EU (where there are hundreds of scala positions etc.).

I was on very good salary (100kNZD++ dollars / year), life was very very comfortable. Besides huge purchases buying house or like that which I couldn't do I found it very hard to spend over half my salary (never cooking, eating twice a day out). I was living alone in AKL renting all the time.

Weather is very nice, but sun is very very strong, so you require sunscreen 100% of time.

> Did you miss european culture ( or sports on TV or anything like that)?

Yes. I'm not sure how to put it, as I'm not native English speaker, but I hope noone will get offended by following. Also this may wildly differ outside of AKL. There are lots of ethnicities, which is fine, but I am single and I am most attracted to single type, so the pool for me to find girlfriend from is much much smaller (I'd say about 20-30%). While people are very very friendly there, the nightlife in Auckland is pretty bad (was much better in Wellington when I flew there once).

> How did you deal with the time difference between Europe and NZ? When I was > in NZ on vacation I missed being able to watch the stuff that I am used to > on TV in the evening, due to the twelve hour time difference to Europe. I > dont think I could ever switch from soccer to cricket.

I don't watch TV so I didn't miss it, and they occasionally had NHL live games on, which is great, since I couldn't watch it in EU since lots of them were at crazy times. They are huge for cricket and rugby, which I given some try but I did not enjoy it as much.

All in all, I do not regret going there and it's awesome country, but my take on it is, if you have a family, it's the ideal place to move into. Schools are great, it's very safe country, people are mostly happy, and salary of programmer's is very very decent. If you're single, and move there on your own, you're gonna have it a bit tougher, but lots of that depends on you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> If you like the sound of NZ but don't want to commit to such a big move, come check out British Columbia. We're like NZ lite. :)

<comment><USER54> NZ lite... more like the inverse. Vancouver and specifically BC has a lot of similarities to NZ yes, including the frequent liquid sunshine.

Having spent approx half my working life in (Wellington/Vancouver) I'd say Vancouver would be a more natural fit for our US cousins.

However that said you can't beat NZ for internal travel, day trips, adventure tourism. Its basically a compact version of British Columbia.

<comment><USER28> Remember than NZ is a long thin country that spans very roughly the same distance north-south as the US West Coast (it's just that you grew up with those maps where the Northern Hemisphere is twice the size of the Southern).

It also spans roughly the same range of climates - Dunedin where I live is Seattle/VancouverBC sort of climate (and the southern West Coast is very Olympic Peninsular subtropical rain forest). On the other hand Auckland/Northland is Californiaish but with more tropical moisture because we're an island and not a continent

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> "From the Devonport ferry, passengers can get a view of downtown Auckland."

...IF they would just look up from their phones. Humorous photo. Illustrates something though, which is that the more you "court" people from the USA (presumably on the basis that your country is so different from and far from the USA) the more your country starts to resemble the USA.

</comment><comment><USER56> Good luck courting new tech talent when existing tech talent gets hung out to dry at the first hint of pressure.

See Kim Dotcom's troubles for reference.

<comment><USER15> The NZ government bending over for the US government was not exactly very popular with the locals. A different government may have had a stronger spine.

You also forgot the part where Kim Dotcom is a convicted fraudster, who was making money through deliberate violation of copyright, is all tech talent like him?

Oh, and then there was the time he tried to get involved in NZ politics. That was not superpopular.

<comment><USER17> _The NZ government bending over for the US government was not exactly very popular with the locals._

The NZ government still refuses to let US warships that may be nuclear powered into our ports, and thus has no free trade deal with the worlds largest economy. Instead we have a free trade deal with Red China, which is now colonising us.

<comment><USER57> The US announced their participation in the TPP in 2009, a free trade agreement encompassing trade between the US and New Zealand. The Obama administration had been very gung-ho about its ratification in the US, so I don't think the question of nuclear powered warships comes up much anymore.

I don't think you can squarely point to the New Zealand–China FTA for whichever interpretation of colonization you'd like – immigration laws were mostly unchanged by the FTA with the exception of short term work visas, and property purchases by Chinese investors is not an exclusively "countries who have negotiated free trade agreements with China" phenomenon (see Vancouver in Canada, Seattle in the US).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> For me there is an undeniable appeal to "voting with your feet" after the result of the voting at the ballot box turned out so poorly.

I personally likely won't be impacted too badly by Trump and his supporters. I may have economic options here that are as good as or better than my options anywhere else. But I feel a need to put some distance between this country and myself now. It doesn't represent me anymore. I don't belong to it anymore. I'm not ok with the decision it made. I've even felt that it ceased to be a place worth caring about.

There are just a couple things that pull me back from this line of thinking: A broader view of history and a broader view of alternative places in the world.

History: The last election may be the biggest step backward my country has taken since I was born, but I don't get to pretend that it was so wonderful before that. Yes, we all know this. But I just relearned it even more forcefully in a piece I read a couple weeks ago: [http://www.mtv.com/news/2998426/fascism-has-already-come- to-...](http://www.mtv.com/news/2998426/fascism-has-already-come-to-america/)

Places in the world: If I'm going to leave for the reasons above, I need good reasons why another place is better. But every place has its downsides. There probably is a good case to be made in favor of a number of places, but if I'm going to be honest about this, I need to research it and not move reflexively without knowing a lot about the place I'm moving to. And if I do move somewhere, I should do it with some degree of commitment to put some effort into making that place better. Otherwise any anti-immigration sentiments that exist there will probably be right about me.

Being able to chose your home, rather than having to stay where you were born, is a valuable thing. But at some point it is good to choose a home and invest in it.

</comment><comment><USER59> Isolation sounds good. Super high housing costs relative to wages sounds... familiar, shall I say.

</comment><comment><USER60> If Pacific Fibre had happened in New Zealand, I'd seriously consider living there. Unfortunately it died for a combination of not raising enough money (sigh) and trumped-up US national security concerns (they were planning to use Huawei equipment).

</comment><comment><USER61> Some really interesting numbers looking at various cost of living expenses and local purchasing power between say San Francisco and Christchurch here [https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?cou...](https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of- living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=New+Zealand&country2=United+States&city1=Christchurch&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA&tracking=getDispatchComparison)

</comment><comment><USER62> It all revolves around jobs in which face-to-face spitting is deemed essential. My own job is about programming. I do that from Southeast Asia nowadays.

I wonder why I would ever consider doing that from New Zealand?

I would not make one more dollar while I would spend truck loads on things that I do not need, such as taxes and inflated housing cost, and what have you.

<comment><USER15> The taxes pay for a healthy society.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Cool, now you can help develop clever mechanisms to exfiltrate information and wealth from end users and consolidate capital into the hands of those who already possess more than they need, from the picturesque, rolling green hills of sunny New Zealand... Wake me up when the tech scene in Monrovia is booming out of control.

</comment><comment><USER49> First and foremost consider the lifestyle. If that is for you then you can be sure if you are capable then you will find work. NZ has the world's highest proportion of self-employed and entrepreneurs and still an attitude of 'can- do' prevails.

</comment><comment><USER64> I think NZ could become a major tech hub over the next 15 years. The geographical isolation will be alleviated by the internet and the development of faster air travel.

For anyone interested in tech, wanting to start up or grow in NZ, check out the Edmund Hilary fellowship.

</comment><comment><USER65> There's something special when a certain density of talented people live together. Moving toward an isolated environment is never a good idea. I'm sure the title is a little misleading.

Disclaimer: I have nothing against New Zealand and I am no fan of San Francisco

<comment><USER64> Moving towards an isolated environment is pretty much what pioneers do. If they succeed, people will follow and new networks develop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> I'm in that looksee contest the article says got works wide interest but when I look at the online dashboard it says only 556 people are registered and in the running....

<comment><USER67> Me too - I stopped participating after they announced a security leak a few weeks ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Sooo in my view this helps prove that there's not so much a developer shortage as a failure in recruitment and hiring practices in the US.

</comment><comment><USER69> As a New Zealander who wants to move to the USA, swap? (jk immigration laws make it impossible)

</comment><comment><USER70> Low pay, corrupt politicians, high crime, polluted lakes and rivers. What's not to like?

</comment><comment><USER71> The truth is that people registered there for a free trip.

</comment><comment><USER72> _> For the most part, this is all true in, say, Tulsa. Especially if you stay off Facebook._

Really only the cost of living.

 _> Commuting is less wearying_

Not really.

There's a near zero percent chance your commute involves anything other than driving. The walkable areas of midwestern cities are certainly cheaper than SF, but they're also not exactly cheap. You're still looking at half a million for a decent house, 200k for a decent condo, and that's on a midwestern salary. Not to mention the weather.

And if you're driving, well, driving is driving.

 _> And American politics, "Brexit" and the Islamic State are on the other side of the world... [can be avoided] Especially if you stay off Facebook._

I mean, I guess you can just _avoid talking to people altogether_ , but avoiding Facebook is no way to avoid the nastier parts of American populist politics in the midwest, which is decidedly Trump's America. On my last visit I learned that there are still people who very strongly believe that Obama is a Muslim and Clinton is a witch (literally, as in worships satan. I'm not exaggerating and they weren't being coy with language). And I wasn't even seeking them out, they were just the people I was obligated to spend time with.

So no, the midwest isn't some cheaper version of California. There's a reason why people like me leave after a few decades and never look back. The weather sucks, the cities are either unlivable or not appreciably cheaper, and there's a high concentration of extremely unpleasant people.

<comment><USER73> There are so many things wrong with this comment.

First, commuting refers specifically to the to-and-from of your journey to work. I hate cars, but you're being dishonest in how you're addressing the parent comment. Going to the grocery store, for example, isn't a commute. Actually you could probably use Prime Pantry or something and not even have to drive to go do those things. I strongly prefer a walkable city, and people like Jeff Speck preach the gospel as far as I'm concerned - but I'll take a daily 20 minute drive over an hour hopping on and off trains any day of the week - especially when I can do so from my nice, comfy Lexus or whatever.

You can complain about the weather and that's valid, but the whole planet isn't California and we can't all live there for one reason or another. If a bunch of people like me moved out there from the frozen/scorching wasteland of places like NYC, then you'd be priced out of the state. Be thankful that for some people weather isn't that big of a deal.

>And don't get me started on the casual racism/homophobia. The Midwest is Trump's America. In-laws firmly believe Obama is a Muslim and that Hillary Clinton is a witch. I'm not exaggerating for effect, and they're not being coy. Sincerely held beliefs.

Just because your family is stupid doesn't make everybody else's family stupid. My parents don't think Obama is a Muslim , aren't at all racist, and they voted for Trump. I don't think Obama is a Muslim (I voted for him both times) and I don't like Hillary. So you can stop with the drive-by generalizations here - especially these undeserved "casually racist" ones.

<comment><USER72> _> There are so many things wrong with this comment._

I feel strongly about the midwest. I hated living there. There are serious down-sides, and if people move to Tulsa thinking it's "NZ in the USA", they're going to be in for a rough surprise.

Do you disagree?

 _> First, commuting refers specifically to the to-and-from of your journey to work_

My point was that you're probably going to end up driving in either case, and if you have to drive anyways, your commute will suck no matter where you live.

OR, if you don't end up driving, you're actually not saving much on cost of housing. And you probably have a lower salary with which to purchase that prime real estate. Basically, little net benefit over California or other coastal states.

 _> You can complain about the weather and that's valid, but the whole planet isn't California and we can't all live there for one reason or another. If a bunch of people like me moved out there from the frozen/scorching wasteland of places like NYC, then you'd be priced out of the state. Be thankful that for some people weather isn't that big of a deal._

First, I don't live in California.

I agree with everything else. It's really all beside the point, though.

 _> Just because your family is stupid doesn't make everybody else's family stupid... So you can stop with the drive-by generalizations here - <USER5> these undeserved "casually racist" ones._

My family isn't stupid. Pretty smart by any objective measure aside from willingness to believe confirmational bullshit, actually. Which is kind of my point. They're embedded in a terrible culture.

Look, I lived in the midwest for decades. I know what I'm talking about.

The politics of the region is dominated by this sort of stuff. It's a LOT more common and MUCH more difficult to avoid in the midwest. The composition of state houses speaks for itself. Name a midwestern state and I'll go member-by- member through its General Assembly to demonstrate to you the obscene popularity of blatant intolerance. Seriously, shoot.

It bleeds over into every aspect of life.

If you're lucky enough to be white male and straight, you can just _avoid talking to people all-together_ , or silo yourself off from your community, and mostly ignore the terrible culture of the region. Which is what I did. But if you like living in a community where you know and respect your neighbors, the midwest can be a tough place to be.

<comment><USER74> This assumes that one's politics align with the politics and hostile culture in California. I _intentionally_ avoid living in CA due to its culture/politics and have turned down multiple bona fide relocation offers to CA.

Like all places, the Midwest is not without its unhappy quirks or its difficult people, but Midwesterners are noticeably polite and friendly, even coming from other "flyover" regions.

Yes, they are generally conservative (not universally, and especially not among the young), but they can usually get along with their neighbors just fine.

When I lived in the Midwest, we had not only multiple gay people, but multiple gay _teachers_ living in our neighborhood. While I'm sure it upset some of the parents, these teachers were able to go about their business just fine and spent many years teaching at the schools. This was in a very red region, not some liberal enclave.

We had people of all races and it was rarely, if ever, a visible issue. We didn't have anyone shouting racial slurs or visibly denigrating people. I'm sure this happened occasionally, not trying to say that there are literally 0 racists, but it was by no means a sentiment you'd come across with any frequency.

If you live in a big city like NYC or SF, you probably get exposed to more "intolerance" from contrarians/extremists who _also_ live in big cities than someone who lives in the Midwest.

The Midwest is a great place to be. It's extremely unfair to cast such aspersions on it.

<comment><USER72> _> This assumes that one's politics align with the politics and hostile culture in California. I intentionally avoid living in CA due to its culture/politics and have turned down multiple bona fide relocation offers to CA._

This is certainly true! To each his own. My point was that the midwest probably isn't a great place to be if you're looking for "cheaper California".

Sounds like we agree on that.

 _> When I lived in the Midwest, we had not only multiple gay people, but multiple gay teachers living in our neighborhood... these teachers were able to go about their business just fine and spent many years teaching at the schools_

1\. "Not being fired for being gay" is literally the lowest bar I can think of other that "not being imprisoned for being gay".

2\. A school I attended explicitly discriminated against trans people in hiring. And those are the public schools. So, YMMV. I'm sure things have gotten better across the entire country since then, including the midwest.

3\. Even without "lose your job/house" levels of hate, the world can still be a nasty place. E.g. imagine driving by this billboard every day: [http://www.medina-gazette.com/news/2013/02/22/Passers-by- on-...](http://www.medina-gazette.com/news/2013/02/22/Passers-by- on-I-71-condemn-return-of-church-s-billboard.html)

And of course most of the people you interact with disagree with the sign, but attend churches that teach the exact same thing. Those "midwestern nice" interactions don't feel so "nice" anymore.

 _> If you live in a big city like NYC or SF, you probably get exposed to more "intolerance" from contrarians/extremists who also live in big cities than someone who lives in the Midwest._

Sure. The difference is _who 's in charge_! And that's the difference that makes a difference.

 _> The Midwest is a great place to be. It's extremely unfair to cast such aspersions on it._

For you. I hated it.

<comment><USER74> >"Not being fired for being gay" is literally the lowest bar I can think of other that "not being imprisoned for being gay".

The point is that the community at large was willing to accept these people as role models for their children and did so with minimal hostility or interference (visible anyway, since I can't see what happens behind closed doors). Entrusting a teaching position is a little different than any other random job.

While I'm sure there are horror stories, in practice it would be very rare to find someone who was legitimately "fired for being gay".

The myth that Republican areas are hostile wastelands with poor quality of life for minorities has much more to do with confirmation bias and a desire to justify high cost of living than anything else, IMO. This is not to discount any personal experience you may have had, just my opinion on the sentiment in general.

<comment><USER72> _> The myth that Republican areas are hostile wastelands with poor quality of life for minorities has much more to do with confirmation bias and a desire to justify high cost of living than anything else, IMO._

If only that were true, I'd move back to the midwest in a heart beat.

 _> This is not to discount any personal experience you may have had, just my opinion on the sentiment in general._

Name a "that doesn't happen here" scenario -- from blatant racial discrimination/brutality in policing to "bobby's parents sent him to pray-the- gay-away camp" \-- and I experienced or directly witnessed a friend experience it before coming of age.

Whenever people shame me for being overly harsh on midwestern culture, I stop and feel guilty for a split second. Then I think back to these victims of its excesses and the guilt quickly subsides.

I firmly believe there are decent communities in the midwest. Especially in its cities. I don't doubt your or anyone else when you say you've had good experiences.

Unfortunately, that doesn't change anything about the fundamental cultural trade-winds of the aggregate region. Or the effect they have on people caught in the zip code one over.

<comment><USER75> >Name a "that doesn't happen here" scenario -- from blatant racial discrimination/brutality in policing to "bobby's parents sent him to pray-the- gay-away camp" \-- and I experienced or directly witnessed a friend experience it before coming of age.

So you were born 20+ years ago? It sounds like your notion of the Midwest is about as stuck in the past as the notion that San Francisco is a hippie mecca.

>Whenever people shame me for being overly harsh on midwestern culture, I stop and feel guilty for a split second. Then I think back to these victims of its excesses and the guilt quickly subsides.

And you should feel guilty for continually shitting on a place you have no association with anymore.

<comment><USER72> _> So you were born 20+ years ago?_

And left less than 3 years ago. Not much had changed. In some ways, it got a lot worse. My perceptions aren't stuck in the past.

Again, don't believe me? Go person-by-person down your general assembly and send an email to each asking how they feel about allowing business owners the freedom to not serve LGBT people, or whether they will sponsor a bill to ban conversion therapy.

Or for that matter, ask if they support legislation to outlaw incrimination against LGBT individuals in hiring! Most midwestern states don't have such a law on the book.

And not just your representative -- all of them. Or even just yours and all from surrounding counties. After all, we wouldn't want to generalize.

 _> And you should feel guilty for continually shitting on a place you have no association with anymore._

Why?

I don't think the midwest is, on balance, a nice place to live. I think the cultural downsides of the region eventually bleed into your life, even if you try to cloister yourself in one of the urban liberal islands. My opinion may not be _fair_ (I think it is, but allow the possibility that a lifetime of bad experiences was somehow unrepresentative). But it sure as hell isn't uninformed.

I think people who are considering moving to the midwest from a coastal area -- or especially from abroad -- should hear this perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> "ISIS on the other side of the world"; nice. I assume NZ does not have the same immigration policy that is importing ISIS to Europe.

</comment><comment><USER77> New Zealand, Australia and Canada are nowadays the primary destination for skilled worker immigrants

They are the future ...

Europe and USA will have to rely on in house minds .. which I believe will bring more equilibrium to this world

USA, Europe and Japan are not going anywhere I am not predicting their demise .. just that CANZAU will be the beacon

<comment><USER78> [Giant Citation Required]

Those three countries you grouped together are very different in terms of compensation, quality and volume re: tech companies. Australia leads in all three while quality and volume are an issue in NZ and Canada's compensation vs. the cost of living in its larger cities (Vancouver, Toronto) feels very off.

<comment><USER77> from the future but still works :P

[https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/20/canada-is-north- americas-u...](https://techcrunch.com/2017/04/20/canada-is-north-americas-up- and-coming-startup-center/) or the corresponding hn link [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14160053](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14160053)</comment></comment></comment>


Coursera's transition to a new technology platform - <AUTHOR> http://coursera.tumblr.com/post/145882467032/courseras-transition-to-a-new-technology-platform <comment><USER2> "There are a _FEW DOZEN_ courses on the old platform that will not migrate to the new platform."</comment>


Building an analytics and reporting stack in 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://reflect.io/blog/building-an-analytics-and-reporting-stack-in-2017/ <comment><USER2> Insightful and informative article. A balanced view of all the resources. Definitely a keeper.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great Article! the stack is changing...</comment>


Leveraging GPT-3 as a Marketer - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@bradams128/supercharging-your-creativity-with-openai-marketing-c8ddb85d1b48 <comment><USER2> That's pretty cool.

Wonder if GPT-3 can do logic problems?

Kevin, Joseph, and Nicholas are 3 brothers. If the following statements are all true, which of them is the youngest?

Kevin is the oldest. Nicholas is not the oldest. Joseph is not the youngest.

A: Nicholas</comment>


Why does the West innovate more? - <AUTHOR> http://amconmag.com/2007/2007_09_10/article2.html Apparently he hasn't heard of Ruby. But see also: http://paulgraham.com/usa.html <comment><USER2> Too many old examples,of course the West produced Newton and the fundamentals of modern science but if the West disappeared today China, Japan, South Korea, India and all the other countries would not stop scientific research.

To get basic research done a country has to be rich, in a poor country only applied science gets any budget. And basic research has been a state financed thing for the most parts of history. Or if you look back a bit more a privately financed gentleman hobby.

The table has turned now in many societies there is enough money,talent and a society liberal enough to allow a real science environment. That is brilliant thing because every new researcher speeds up development and benefits the whole.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is silly. There are more Eastern "innovators" than Western ones. They just prefer to operate out of San Jose and Boston. Globalization works both ways, you know.

Why do the "innovators" make their homes in the USA? That's where the startup hubs are!

<http://www.paulgraham.com/america.html>

And we should distrust the word "innovator", which tends to be awarded to the engineers with the best English-language marketing team. When a product engineer in Malaysia invents a technique that doubles manufacturing efficiency, she is "skilled"; when an engineer living in Sunnyvale develops a web-based social network he's an "innovator".

</comment><comment><USER4> >> I don't drive a Toyota or shoot with a Canon SLR because they don't work.

A poorly written article in my opinion. It revolves around the viewpoint of the author, without any facts or figures.

<comment><USER5> Not to defend this particular article, but all essays revolve around the viewpoint of the author. An essay is not a research paper.

<comment><USER4> Surely, every author has their own stand. I meant that in some cases making a statement without due facts or figures to back that statement, makes it assumptious and biased.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember watching a TV programme a few years back that contrasted the medieval engineering culture of Western Europe with that of China. I can't for the life of me remember the historian's name, but his theory seemed to have some merit.

His basic argument was that there was a fundamental difference in diets between the two cultures. China was primarily a rice-growing culture, which meant that they needed a large amount of space and irrigation to create paddy fields. Once the rice was grown, it was simple to harvest and the only further treatment it needed to be rendered edible was boiling. All in all, the Chinese culture had quite a low-tech solution to the problem of feeding large amounts of people.

On the other hand, rice was not native to Western Europe and impossible to cultivate there anyway. In order to feed its population, European culture grew grains such as wheat, oats and barley, which were not only far harder to harvest but required grinding / milling and baking into bread before they could be rendered edible. Compared to the Chinese rice-based solution, the Western Europe model required a lot more technology. There was, therefore, a much higher demand for technological, engineered solutions to the problem of providing mass sustenance. In turn, this demand led to the adoption of such advances as horse collars, mills, ploughs, crop rotation and horseshoes. All these things were expensive and often required collective solutions.

The historian's main hypothesis was that the effect of this continual (and necessary) improvement of farming techniques was to engender a culture of engineering in Western Europe. Regardless of where the innovations came from (and they were often cribbed from other cultures, often Middle Eastern) the continual and expensive process of re-engineering farming practices led directly to the development of engineering as a discipline.

I really wish I could remember the guy's name.

</comment><comment><USER7> wow what a giant mess of ignorance and generalizations. I can write an entire article refuting every point he attempted to make.. there are so many Western "innovators" in the artistic field who were "inspired" by Eastern "copycats." Then again, their innovative works were partly influenced by previous artists who were, interestingly enough, Western. Point being, there's no difference in the willingness of one to be innovative, East or West. There are standardized social constraints in any culture but to those with the will to innovate they are irrelevant in making their decision to execute.. results and consequences are a different story. Sorry if this sounded like a rant.. I was just upset by the reality that people with this kind of uneducated views are still abundant. New York City with slanty eyes?? come on

<comment><USER8> I don't like the tone of this article, especially the first half (it was bordering on being racist...) - but I agree with the author. While there are exceptions, Asian culture is about obeying and following either your parents, your teacher, your government, or whoever else is above you (your boss).

It's so strong that even some American Asians today are trapped by it (fortunately not many to my knowledge). I actually experienced this when I first moved to the SF bay area. My gf (now wife)'s adherrence to her parent's wishes (even though she didn't agree with them) nearly drove me insane... even though I'm Asian myself, I guess I just can't relate anymore to certain aspects of our culture since I grew up where there were virtually no other Asians....

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For anyone interested in this topic, I very highly recommend _Carnage and Culture_, by Victor Davis Hanson. A fantastic book that destroys many assertions made in the more popular _Guns, Germs, and Steel_.

</comment><comment><USER10> That's Fred Reed. He's an oddball.

But consider: Who's the most famous Japanese American? A lot of people here might say, "Guy Kawasaki", but somebody did a poll asking just this question, and the overwhelming response was..."Bruce Lee". A dead Chinese actor.

<comment><USER11> FYI: Bruce Lee was an American of mixed German/Chinese descent.

<comment><USER12> Bruce Lee is of pure Chinese descent.

Update: I am wrong. According to Wikipedia, Bruce Lee's mother is of mixed descent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> And I thought the word "wogs" went out with top-hats.

</comment><comment><USER4> Fred Reed's (the articles author) website: <http://www.fredoneverything.net/>

Well, first impressions are often the last impressions.

<comment><USER14> He seems to sum himself up in his latest column: <http://www.fredoneverything.net/Brains.shtml>

"Thinking About Intelligence: More Trouble Than It's Worth"

<comment><USER4> With all due respect, somehow his words remind me of Howard Stern :)

<comment><USER14> Maybe Howard Stern modulo entertainment. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> People are the same all over the world. But they are just under different conditions. That is all.

Tell me who's your friends and I'll tell you who you are. How can you be an enterpreneur if all your relatives and friends suppose that stable and reliable job is the only way?

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm surprise this is for the "September 10, 2007 Issue" The idea that the eastern world does not look favorably upon risk taker might be true 10 years ago, but thing has definitely changed since then.

</comment><comment><USER17> Just think he shouldn't have used math as an example.</comment>


Ask HN: what would make you switch from Facebook? - <AUTHOR>

those who believe Facebook is just a stage in still  evolving Internet and one day will be in MySpace shoes, whats your take on the future Facebook? <comment><USER2> Wrong question. The right question is "What would _allow_ you to switch from Facebook?" For me, the answer is "if all my friends and relatives would move someplace else". I suspect Facebook will work hard to prevent that, blocking data liberation tools and things intended to synchronize your data across multiple social sites.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks. that actually surprised me when they released the tool to export your entire profile. Thought it was kind of a mistake to give that feature to the users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I 'switched' from Facebook, LinkedIn and G+ the other day: <http://blog.jgc.org/2012/01/social-site-shutdown.html> I simply closed all three accounts and decided to live life without them.

<comment><USER4> Agreed. I hardly use Facebook and I find it's UI a nightmare. All my close friends stay in touch via Gchat, more distant friends either don't need to contact me or have my email (or know a closer friend).

My girlfriend closed her facebook though, and it's amazing how much aggression people display when she tells them that. _"What?! You don't have a facebook account? What's wrong with you?"_

Then they go on and start bitching about how much time they waste on Facebook...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Events are the only reason I still have an account. If I had a better way to be notified of parties and small local concerts, I would deactivate my account in 2 seconds. The news feed doesn't do anything for me, I don't use any apps, and random people from my past already can't look me up.

I already use other apps to share the kinds of events and connections Facebook wants me to put on their platform, and I falsified my profile so ads show up in a language I can't read. But I cant get al the way rid of my account, because not having one would be too inconvenient.

I suspect its going to stay this way for a long time, for the same reason I have a Yahoo account I never use.

</comment><comment><USER6> Facebook has something MySpace never had: an ecosystem. With Facebook Connect, a place to receive invites, a central place for contacts, albums, etc, a developer program, brand/fan pages, etc. it's hard to see them going away for a long long time.

That said, I am not in Facebook. I would consider joining a social network if it had meaningful/interesting conversations I would want to participate in. Sort of like Hacker News, but more geared towards any general meaningful topic, not just tech. Quora is as close as it gets, but even that is too much Q&A.. I just want general chat, like Reddit except a bit more serious.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't think I would move due to the multitude of family/friends, but Facebook will die off when there is an open social networking framework.

I see it like shoes. You wear Nike, your friend wears Adidas, but you can still walk together. You can connect across networks, tag photos across networks, etc. You will have your personal page but it's really just a place to rest your head - your 'Newsfeed' aggregates all your friends activity from whatever network they're on. It won't matter what shoes you wear, just get a pair and go walking.

<comment><AUTHOR> opengraph does that, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Really-- a stiff breeze would blow me out of my roost on facebook.

But like mcherm, I am bound by my connections to my relatives/friends with whom I would likely otherwise lose touch.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm only on Facebook to stay in touch with friends and family who I don't get to see on a regular basis. I'm not in any way committed to the platform.

</comment><comment> mike-cardwell I want to use a distributed social network which no single corporation or government can control, monitor or censor. Everything should be private by default, with PKI and encryption playing a central part.

If somebody can create that, and make it easy for my mum to use, then I (and many other people I suspect) would spend _considerable_ effort to get people to move over to using it.

<comment><USER10> <https://joindiaspora.com/>

<comment> mike-cardwell Diaspora has the distributed part, but not the PKI part. I'd be happier using Diaspora than Facebook, but not so much so that I'd go out of my way to convince my non-techy friends to move.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would have to be some sort of network that starts out as an extreme niche and slowly builds network effects.

<comment><AUTHOR> good call. is there any other "niche" of a human life that hasnt been tapped by network effect?

<comment><USER11> Yes, there are plenty of niches without established social networks.

The issue becomes whether the niche provides a compelling value proposition for people to deal with the beginning. I would argue that HN or maybe Reddit have the right type of environment where if they decided to add a social tier to comments stuff like I could add someone as a friend that it would take off.

Also, I think dating sites have potential to win here too. Site A could easily add a friend button and end up with network effects to keep people from going to site B. That could grow in to a real network.

The way I think about it is the same way I think about the universe. Without a doubt, with 7 Billion people on earth, someone will figure out a way to create network effects. From an investment standpoint I would be fearful to back anyone unless they had traction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Facebook won't be in the same shoes as MySpace because it was not sold at a "quasi-dipshit" price after less than three years to a massive media conglomerate [see also AOL].

Instead, Facebook has focused on growth and Zuckerberg has maintained a huge ownership stake.

Indeed, MySpace was vulnerable to such a sale because it was a division of a larger company and its founders did not have the sort of control over its destiny that Facebook's founders have.

</comment><comment><USER13> What would make me switch? If I could still access all the Facebook info without using Facebook. That would make me switch.</comment>


Ask HN: How to setup a custom query & response SMS server? - <AUTHOR>

Here is what I am trying to do: A user sends a sms to a number with a certain key-word, the server would respond immediately with relevant info.
Similar to the Bank of America text banking, you type and send the word "BAL" to the BoA Text banking number and it responds with your balance.
How is this setup? Thank you. <comment><USER2> This is a big topic. If you want users to respond to a shortcode (like 40404), you have to register that and pay a monthly fee for it's use ($500 - $1000/mo). If you go that route, you probably want to pay a mobile aggregator like mBlox to manage the connection for you. They have an API and you can integrate that into your application.

If you don't mind using a long code (10 digit normal phone number), you can do it with a GSM modem hooked directly to your server. But that has some redundancy and reliability issues. There is free software to support this though: <http://www.kannel.org/> <http://www.gnokii.org/>

If you don't mind your users needing to use a keyword at the beginning of all your messages, like "BofA BAL", you can use a shared shortcode. That's a lot cheaper and there are a bunch of providers who can supply that service.

Sorry there's not too much specific here. It's a big topic. But if you google around using some of these terms, you should find more info. Or respond back with some more specific questions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Appreciate the response. This is great starting point. Thank you for all the info.</comment></comment>


UXBOX, the open-source solution for design and prototyping - <AUTHOR> https://uxbox.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> there is also [https://github.com/akiraux/Akira](https://github.com/akiraux/Akira) , still in early development

</comment><comment><USER2> some previous comments, [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21575894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21575894)</comment>


Buzz launch wasn't flawed, Google's intentions are - <AUTHOR> http://counternotions.com/2010/02/15/buzzback/

<comment><USER2> My take-away

> Marissa Mayer, Google's vice-president for search and user experience, says > 60-80% of Google's products may eventually fail. Unfortunately, the few that > survive are neither all that inspiring nor market leaders. What Google lacks > is not infrastructure, engineers, money, time or even great ideas. It's the > ability to delight users. _What Google is missing, in other words, is > strategic design._

</comment><comment><USER3> > Apple has no pretense at "openness"

They might control the hardware and the app store but the software stack is not so closed e.g. Darwin Streaming Server, Webkit, OpenDarwin, blocks & Grand Dispatch, libcocoa, Objective-C and the list goes on</comment>


CSS to get support for trigonometry functions - August-Garcia https://www.zdnet.com/article/css-to-get-support-for-trigonometry-functions/ <comment><AUTHOR> Looks like it's closer to becoming Turing complete

<comment><USER2> How so? These functions don't perform recursion or looping.</comment></comment>


How Google have lost opportunity to get millions of Google+ users - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudorado.com/2013/07/how-google-have-lost-opportunity-to-get.html <comment><USER3> If they found a _good_ way of incorporating RSS into Google+, that would certainly be an incentive to use Google+; but just adding RSS feeds to a circle in Google+, as this article suggests, would be terrible. Google+ (like Facebook and Twitter) works on a "forget by default" system, where, if you don't consciously make a choice to save an item for reading later, it gets lost off the bottom of the feed. Replacing Google Reader with that would be a bit like replacing a DVR with a system that broadcasts all your favourite TV shows at once.

I think if I wanted to disrupt social networking, I'd work on something like a DVR for social media shares (or, perhaps, a more socially-integrated service like Pocket), which allows you to specify certain content as content you don't want to miss.

<comment><USER4> Actually, when I visit various discussion communities on Google Plus, it has a count of the unread posts in the various areas of the community. So they have read tracking in Google Plus, although not in the default display of the main feed. Not sure Google wants people reading outside content anyway, though, compared to interacting inside a locked in Google Plus community. They are pretty anti-standards lately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a good idea. However, one thing I have learned from unsuccessfully pitching good ideas to very successful people/businesses is that the more successful they are, the less their decisions will make sense to outside observers. This is largely because their resources allow them to have different motivations for doing or not doing things than virtually anyone else.

Telling a wealthy person that you can make them alot of money, or in this case, telling a business that has hundreds of millions of users how to save a few million of them, isn't necessarily compelling to them. A company like Google has the luxury of deciding that a few million users aren't worth keeping for whatever reason, even though dismissing that number of users for _any_ reason sounds absurd to most of us.

</comment><comment><USER6> There's an assumption here that doing this would result in a material number of users for Google+. But I'm not sure it would: it's reasonably safe to assume that everyone using Google Reader knows about G+, and is either using it already or has decided to not use it. At best, what's proposed would convert some percentage of that latter group (maybe) over to using G+. It _might_ be a couple million users if everything plays out well. It's probably less.

That sounds like a lot, but at the scale G+ and FB are competing, a few million (possible) users isn't worth allocating dev resources for. They're looking for things that move tens, or hundreds of millions of users. Some opportunities are just too small to pursue.

<comment><USER7> My understanding was that Google Reader had somewhere around 12 million users.

Even if only 50% of those migrated over to Google+, if they had found a way to cleanly incorporate RSS feeds into their interface, that's probably a non- trivial amount of users, especially if they are checking multiple times a day, and sharing news/information from their RSS out to readers.

It's not just about users, it's also about activity..

<comment><USER6> 6M users is just not interesting when you're chasing having hundreds of millions of users. And 50% is a wildly optimistic percentage for how additional G+ users you'd create.

Let's say they have 12M monthly active users; a large percentage of those are probably already G+ users (let's call it 50%.) A large percentage of the remainder have deliberately decided they don't want to use G+, so you'd be doing pretty damn well to convert 10-20% of them over.

So that's only 600K-1.2M MAU in a "best case" outcome. You're just not going to be able to sell that as being worth allocating a half-dozen engineers to pursue building a new product. It's not even close.

<comment><USER8> >6M users is just not interesting when you're chasing having hundreds of millions of users.

In the use case of a type of site where cascading network effects are of paramount importance, 6M engaged users is _huge_.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, but you're assuming they'd be engaged. If they don't like G+ and they're just using it as a news reader, that's pretty much the opposite of engaged, from a social network perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> My problem is that G+ is unreadable. Every iteration they make it harder and harder to actually read the content. I completely gave up on their Android app for that reason. Most recently they switched the web site to arbitrary sized blocks in a 2d random layout using images wherever possible instead of truncated text. It is true that newspapers do this, but at least they have more readable content in each block. I had to switch G+ to single column view to at least make heads or tails of what is going on.

Reader was focussed on reading content and did a good job of that. Virtually every pixel on the screen was about reading content. Here is what G+ does with actual reading content highlighted in yellow [http://i.imgur.com/ASKMSRv.png](http://i.imgur.com/ASKMSRv.png)

Reader used to be the first tab in my first browser window. This meant I always had a tab open at Google and it was a single click to get into G+. Now I have to consciously choose to go to G+ which happens rarely.

<comment><USER10> Totally, my new homepage is my online RSS reader of choice. I doubt I'm alone there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> If Google had announced the end of reader, but allowed you to integrate the RSS feeds into Google+, all the nerds would have just complained that Google was killing a good product to try and bolster a shitty one (not that I think G+ is shitty). It's always easy after the fact to say that Google could have done this to ease the passing of Reader, but face facts: There's nothing you can do on the internet where people won't complain. Deprecating Reader in favour of g+ would have been a cheap replacement at best, and at worst it could have been viewed as poisoning the water so you'll have to drink Fanta.

</comment><comment><USER12> This makes the assumption that Google's goal with Google+ is just to syndicate content, something that clearly isn't the case. They want content created specifically for Google+ - if they wanted a firehose of data they certainly had the capability and time to allow third-parties to put data into the stream.

Whether or not Google's goal is to create a social network or get more users is up for debate, but this certainly wasn't simply overlooked.

<comment><USER13> I'm thinking you're on the right path. Instead of just adding passive feeds to Google+ and you clicking through I imagine that Google wants content creators to sign up for Google+ accounts and either create content there or post it there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reader had ~single digit millions monthly actives, very likely less than ten million ([http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google-Reader- have](http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google-Reader-have)). It's just not that many people (which is why Reader got cancelled after all).

<comment><USER15> > very likely less than ten million ([http://www.quora.com/How-many-users- > does-Google-Reader-have](http://www.quora.com/How-many-users-does-Google- > Reader-have)).

How did you get 'likely less than ten million' out of a Quora comment saying 'ten _s_ of millions'?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> While I agree it is an interesting idea as someone who uses Google+ a decent amount I would not have wanted non-user contexts mixed in anymore than what is already there (these are already present for a lot of brands etc). I am already starting to get annoyed with the "What's Hot" elements and such inside Google+ I would rather have more subscribed human content that algo picked or rss generated.

I think that moving that into its own interface _within_ Google+ would have been a great idea though.

</comment><comment><USER17> This makes the assumption that these users were using the Reader web interface. I'd bet a good number were using it simply as a sync backend.

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't know how well it would have worked for Google (or not), but, personally, I am very, very "+1" on RSS feeds in social network streams as a general concept. No, you don't get the exact same experience that you get with a "conventional" RSS feed reader, but when your news stream can have arbitrary RSS/Atom delivered content, it opens up a lot of options.

This is why I was so happy that we _just_ got RSS feed subscriptions incorporated into Quoddy[1] - our enterprise social network product. So many things that you might be interested in can be syndicated via RSS / Atom - <USER2> documents posted to a document management system, new customer records posted to a CRM system, etc. Personally I'm more excited about this feature than almost anything we've done lately.

What will be interesting, will be exploring how to utilize UI elements to give a user the ability to get the "best of both worlds" and view their content in a fashion akin to the way Google Reader (or other readers) work, OR view it "in stream" ala a G+ or Facebook style news stream. When you take a step back and look at it, in many ways, a "wall" or "stream" isn't that different than an "inbox", and one wonders if you can't find a neat way to collapse _all_ of this "stuff" (email, rss feeds, social "status updates", etc.) into one interface.

Anyway, call me bullish on syndication, but I almost feel like we need a song titled _You Can 't Stop RSS_ set to the tune of Twisted Sister's _You Can 't Stop Rock and Roll_.[2]

[1]: [https://github.com/fogbeam/Quoddy/tree/prhodes](https://github.com/fogbeam/Quoddy/tree/prhodes)

[2]: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaehBH7DtR4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaehBH7DtR4)

</comment><comment><USER19> I see the logic, but given recent spying revelations, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to move further away from google and US based services, and certainly not an opportunity to get closer and more integrated. If I had a shred of trust left in both google and the USA's ability to protect and respect my data, I might have tried a G+ RSS solution. Nothing short of massive legislative change in the US would even begin to help me want to use such a service.

All a bit of a shame how this has turned out TBH. Although, the whole thing has caused me to educate myself and seek out alternatives rather then just dumbly sign up for things assuming there was little to be concerned about.

Sadly, just more drip, drip away from the US and towards using things like encryption and doing my own thing.

Come on American, what the hell happened? :(

<comment><USER20> Wasn't the Reader announcement before the NSA scandal though? It seems that most people who would make the switch would have done so before that came out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> With the lack of options available in Google+ to adjust the UI, I would not want to move my RSS over to G+. Rather, they could have expanded Google News to transition the feeds over.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's not just the number of users. It's that people who were heavy Reader users are particularly valuable nodes in a network like Google+. They are more likely to draw other people to Google+ than the average user since they curate more content than the average user.

</comment><comment><USER23> Another way to get millions of google+ users, stop plastering ads for it all over Google properties and instead make it useful.

No I don't want to use + on Youtube, no I don't want my search Google+ enabled. On the average week I probably get 5 or 6 requests to do something related to Google+. Worst of all most of the requests are modal dialogues that interrupt the flow of what I wanted to do.

</comment><comment><USER24> After reading the title, I thought this was going to relate back to Google's involvement with the NSA spying program.

Think about it... what facebook user in their right mind would ditch facebook for google+ now?

They're both in bed with the NSA, and if that doesn't bother you (privacy concerns) you would probably never want to leave facebook in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER25> Many users would have seen that as another instance of google trying to shove google+ down their thoats.

</comment><comment><USER26> Make people sign up to G+ to use android. Bam! millions of users

</comment><comment><USER27> Google better go back to basics.

They need to work on real honest not ad-driven search again.

Search quality is dwindling(I don't need 2 billion amazon and ebay listings on search results, Google!).

Months ago when I used duckduckgo I'd bounce right back to Google. Today I can use DDG without regrets.</comment>


Ask HN: Good Code Review Software - <AUTHOR>

Hello,<p>I'm looking for some good, web based code review software that I can host internally. The main goal is not pre-review, but post-review. Since everybody works on such vastly different projects, pre-review is overly burdensome. I'd like to try a post-review system to see if my group can learn from each other even if they aren't working on the same things. <comment><USER2> you might try Review Board: <http://www.review-board.org/> which was developed by a couple of the coders at VMWare. It's now in use by several big and small companies, from Cisco and Motorola to Twitter and Meebo.

EDIT: Also, supports subversion and git.

<comment><USER3> I'm not a big fan of Review Board for the following reasons:

\- It's not effective for large changes because it presents all the diffs on a single page

\- It makes it difficult to jump around in the code. I prefer being able to open the code in my editor of choice and jump around in the file using ctags or whatever code-navigation solution you use

\- I would like better code-navigation features

It's not a bad tool, but my team didn't find it very well-suited to its needs

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> something like this?: <http://code.google.com/p/rietveld/>

<comment><AUTHOR> I think rietvald only works with Subversion (I'd want Subversion and git, at a minimum), and it relies on Google App Engine.

<comment><USER5> When I first heard of rietveld, it only worked with Perforce but I see it now works with subversion.

If you want something that works with Git, you can use gerrit from google. They are using this for Google Android code inspections.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Smart Bear Software's also used by Cisco</comment>


Stackoverflow Clone - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Mayank0255/StackOverflowClone <comment><AUTHOR> Created a clone of stackoverflow on a MERN stack and recently I have documented it as well. Will appreciate if you could take a look at it

Open to any kind of suggestions

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Cool</comment>


Ask HN: AdSense ad that autoloads app store when viewed? - <AUTHOR>

I'm running AdSense on a sports forum and noticing that one ad for an Evony-style game appears to be able to auto-redirect to the App Store when the page is loaded on iOS. Anyone else seen this and how is this getting past Google's reviews? <comment><USER2> I've seen a few of these but since I'm finding them in the wild it's too hard to say whether they came from Google or elsewhere.

Super shady, especially since it's probably avoiding paying for the click!</comment>


Why ARM Owes Apple - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z0zTymv0ZEw&list=UU9-y-6csu5WGm29I7JiwpnA <comment><USER2> The answer: the Newton used ARM and that helped ARM gain a foothold in the cpu market.</comment>


Personal Genetics Startup 23andMe Raises $22 Million - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/09/23andme-funding-2/

<comment><AUTHOR> 23andMe is definitely looking for top-notch engineers. They're still running small (5 engineers 3 years in), so if you want to have a big impact on a potentially world-changing product, get in touch with them.

<comment><USER2> Sell it to me. What do you have to offer that say, Counsyl doesn't?

Direct to consumer sales are dead/dying at the hands of the FDA. Gene patents look like they're getting legally thornier. So, what's your angle?

How do you avoid a war to the realm of being a commodity?

<comment><USER3> > Direct to consumer sales are dead/dying at the hands of the FDA.

Not true - such rumors have been greatly exaggerated.

>What do you have to offer that say, Counsyl doesn't?

At the moment: Access to your whole genotype and a curated set of the published literature, rather than a narrow carrier screening. Deep ancestry analysis & finding long-lost cousins. A commitment to advancing the science of genetics. As the database grows, the insights we generate create more value for the end-user. <http://tinyurl.com/246mw46>

In the future: There's lots of opportunity - come talk to us about it.

>How do you avoid a war to the realm of being a commodity?

genotyping is becoming commoditized, the interpretation of the A's, C's, G's and T's is not. We're in a sweet spot where rapidly falling costs: \- let us offer our service at a lower cost to a broader market \- improve the rates of discovery & create a more valuable interpretation We have an economy of scale which will allow us to: \- negotiate lower costs \- have a bigger database of potential relatives to meet \- better interpret the meaning individual's genetics

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for sharing. I will apply. I already sent in my DNA a few months ago so they can already do the first prescrening on their site without both of us wasting time! ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone here try it?

<comment><USER6> Yes, when they ran the $100 offer a while ago, both myself and my better half signed up.

It's fantastic, we've both been in contact with 3rd and 4th cousins, for me they are from the US, South africa and Australia.

I now know I'm prone to type II diabetes, so have cut down sugar intake and had reports on dozens of other health issues.

I think the current prices are a bit steep, but if they do another offer @ $100 I'll be recomending to everyone I know!

<comment><USER2> Your genetics are your own business, but since you mentioned it: what T2D mutation do you carry? One or two copies? How did they quantify and qualify your risk?

I haven't spat in a tube for them, so I don't know what their reports look like.</comment></comment></comment>